Non-theistic foundation of morality?

[PRmerger]

But you say there are answers to moral problems that can be found through God.

Just to be clear: the argument for a theistic foundation of morality ought not be the above.

What is being argued is that without a theistic foundation of morality, all YOU can do, when someone disagrees with your moral code…

(for example, someone else says, “I believe it’s perfectly moral to drag one’s wife around by her hair when she burns your toast”)…

is to say, “Well, that’s just fine. You have your standards. I have my standards.”

Those of us with a theistic foundation of morality can say: that is absolutely wrong and hideous and vile and if you say that this is moral, YOU ARE WRONG.

 

[Tomdstone]

The question is not what a lot of Catholics believe, but what the Catholic Church categorically teaches. Aiming nuclear weapons at civilian populations (or even military populations) cannot possibly be justified under any circumstances. Today, especially, it is an invitation to Armageddon and the principal reason why Iran and North Korea (both of whose governments are controlled by insane men) could actually become in time the gateway to Armageddon if they are not disarmed and/or prevented from further arming themselves with nuclear weapons.

This from the *Catechism of the Catholic Church *for any Catholic who is uncertain:

2314 “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.” A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes."

What I have seen argued by Roman Catholics concerning the dropping of the bomb on Japan was that is was moral to do so because the bomb was directed toward a military target. They argue that it is OK to bomb military targets even if you use the atomic bomb.

 

[PRmerger]

Just to be clear: the argument for a theistic foundation of morality ought not be the above.

What is being argued is that without a theistic foundation of morality, all YOU can do, when someone disagrees with your moral code…

(for example, someone else says, “I believe it’s perfectly moral to drag one’s wife around by her hair when she burns your toast”)…

is to say, “Well, that’s just fine. You have your standards. I have my standards.”

Those of us with a theistic foundation of morality can say: that is absolutely wrong and hideous and vile and if you say that this is moral, YOU ARE WRONG.

In the atheistic worldview, what you can say is what your preferences are:

“I prefer mashed turnips, footie pajamas and taking my wife out for breakfast if the toast is burnt”.

And it’s ridiculous to tell someone else:

“It’s absolutely wrong to like your turnips fried, sleep in the buff, and to drag your wife around by her hair if she burns your toast”.

Why? Because it’s all a preference.

Without a theistic foundation of morality there are no OUGHTS. There are no moral obligations.

There are only preferences, tastes, likes, and "this works for me"s.

 

[Tomdstone]

Atheism, since it is disorganized and without moral authority, can offer no such moral guidance to atheists.

Many atheists embrace the philosophy of secular humanism which attempts to answer moral questions by appealing to human reason, ethics, and philosophical naturalism. Generally, they believe that ethical values and principles may be discovered by reasonable deliberation and consideration of the issue involved without basing them on supernatural views of reality, but rather judging these principles of moral conduct on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility. They are convinced that they can secure justice and fairness in society by using reason and good will intelligently and creatively to build a better world, both for the individual and for humankind.

 

[Bradski]

If you are going to argue that atheists can use their reason and common sense to solve moral questions, why can’t you give that same allowance for Christians?

Are you really not following the discussion? I am saying EVERYONE, including Christians uses reason to determine the morality of an action. And that is ALL we use. Even God given commands have a reason that you must understand.

We can do this the other way around if you like. How about you give me a moral position that God or the church (same thing) espouses that does not have a reason except for ‘God says so’. Are you REALLY going to tell me that you would hold to a position that has no reasonable argument to support it?

I am going to repeat my position again because it doesn’t seem to be sinking in:

ALL moral positions are the result of reasonable arguments. There are either reasonable arguments for a position, against it, or, more than likely, for and against. And we use the information that we have available and our god-given common sense to determine our own personal position.

Now if you want to say that the church agrees with one position or another, then I have zero problem with that. As long as you can explain the reason behind it. If it is simply ‘God says so’, it will be ignored.

 

[Bradski]

Just to be clear: the argument for a theistic foundation of morality ought not be the above.

Those of us with a theistic foundation of morality can say: that is absolutely wrong and hideous and vile and if you say that this is moral, YOU ARE WRONG.

Are you saying it is wrong because ypu have a theistic foundation of morality? Is that it? There are no reasons other than that you can give? There are no reasonable arguments against doing it?

Well, of course there are. So maybe you are saying that reasonable arguments are not enough. That you need a belief system of some sort to really understand it. To really make it ‘true’.

If that is the case, we are back to what I just posted above. Give me all the reasonable arguments you have, including divne ones if you like and I will take them on board. If you have nothing more than ‘I have a theistic foundation of morality’, then I will ignore that. It is meaningless. It carries no weight whatsoever.

And you very well know why. But for those who don’t…

…if someone says something is right just because their belief system is the correct one, do you think that might be a good enough reason to go along with what they say? Or maybe, just maybe, you’d like them to propose a few reasonable arguments for their position. Other than them saying ‘Ah, but I have a theistic foundation for that belief’.

 

[Bradski]

Many atheists embrace the philosophy of secular humanism which attempts to answer moral questions by appealing to human reason, ethics, and philosophical naturalism. Generally, they believe that ethical values and principles may be discovered by reasonable deliberation and consideration of the issue involved without basing them on supernatural views of reality, but rather judging these principles of moral conduct on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility. They are convinced that they can secure justice and fairness in society by using reason and good will intelligently and creatively to build a better world, both for the individual and for humankind.

Thanks, Tomdstone. Well said.

 

[Tomdstone]

Thanks, Tomdstone. Well said.

Those ideas come from the various Humanist Manifestos. At the same time, there are schools of thought such as evolutionary ethics or Social Darwinism, which claim that moral attitudes and altruistic behaviors can be explained by using evolution to study the benefits of being a part of moral and altruistic group versus the disadvantages of belonging to a group which adheres to immoral or unethical modes of conduct.

 

[Bradski]

Those ideas come from the various Humanist Manifestos. At the same time, there are schools of thought such as evolutionary ethics or Social Darwinism, which claim that moral attitudes and altruistic behaviors can be explained by using evolution to study the benefits of being a part of moral and altruistic group versus the disadvantages of belonging to a group which adheres to immoral or unethical modes of conduct.

I tend in that direction. Although the term social Darwinism seems to be used with negative connotations. Evolutionary ethics or evolutionalry psychology are better suited. But people do seem to either not know, ignore or purposely avoid thinking about the evolutionary reasons why we do a lot of what we do.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I tend in that direction. Although the term social Darwinism seems to be used with negative connotations.

Thats because the term is often use to describe a perspective by people such as Herbert Spencer to justify imperialism, cut-throat economic policies, and unfair treatment of others. The perspectives had existed before Darwin came around but those ideas got branded with Darwin’s name.Herbert Spencer was also the person responsible for coining the phrase “survival of the fittest” which he was applying to economic theories. Unfortunately these ideas are often conflated with evolution and evolutionary studies even though they are unrelated.

 

[PRmerger]

Are you saying it is wrong because ypu have a theistic foundation of morality?

I am saying that without a theistic foundation of morality YOU can’t tell the father of a girl he’s “honor killing” for eloping that he is wrong.

You can only say, “That’s not my preference”.

Without a theistic foundation of morality, everyone who disagrees with you will simply say, if you tell them they are wrong…

(which, if you were to do so, smacks of a moral absolutism, curiously)

…“Hey, I used my reason to come to the conclusion that stabbing my daughter for eloping without permission is absolutely moral!”

And you would have to say, “Well, I guess you’re right. Since our reason is the highest authority to which I can appeal, there’s no way I can argue intelligently with your view.”

Now, the Believer can say,* even if the immoral agent appeals to religion as his rationale for murdering his daughter:* “Well, you are wrong”. Both of our moral authorities come from God but we correct their misinformed theology.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I tend in that direction. Although the term social Darwinism seems to be used with negative connotations. Evolutionary ethics or evolutionalry psychology are better suited. But people do seem to either not know, ignore or purposely avoid thinking about the evolutionary reasons why we do a lot of what we do.

Evolutionary ethics devolve (forgive the pun) into lifeboat ethics – as you, yourself, have demonstrated a number of times. That is because the assumption of atheism is that human beings are on our own as far as existence and morality is concerned. Where there is no ultimate plan or teleology built into existence itself (which is the fundamental difference between any atheistic moral system and any theistic moral system) then the ground rules can be shifted very quickly.

Take evolutionary ethics which must – at the very least – use survival of some human beings, even at the expense of other human beings as the grounding premise. Anything which threatens the survival of all can be used to rationalize the extinction of many or at least some on the pretext that otherwise the lives of all are at stake.

So, using some kind of doomsday scenario – overpopulation, peak oil, lack of resources, or even global warming – an evolutionary ethicist can argue (quite compellingly it seems to others of the ilk) that there is justification for killing off large numbers of human beings (the old, the unborn, the unproductive, the handicapped) for the sake for preserving at least some human life with a modicum of “well-being” (AKA “the good life.”)

So, “feminists” will argue that they have a “right” to kill the babies in their wombs to protect and secure their own “well-being.” Soon, as the euthanasia ideology works its way through society, governments will use the slippery-slope-is-a-fallacy-fallacy to avail themselves of responsibility for those who cannot contribute to the public good. Wait until the millennials will have to pony up for all their entitlements and find looking after their progenitors is too costly a burden – old bodies (like unborn bodies) will start piling up. Lifeboat ethics (AKA evolutionary ethics) at work. Anything can and will be justified under the rubric of survival of – if not of the fittest – at least of those holding the reins of power to make the rules.

This is the problem with all progressivist thinkers, they can’t or won’t think through the implications of their ideas to complete their thinking. Deep down, they understand where it leads, but have the impression if they don’t verbalize it, no one else will notice or catch on – as if those about to be tossed from the lifeboat are incapable of that depth of thought, but are merely capable of treading water (instead of going deep or walking on it) as far as logic is concerned (again forgive the pun.)

Lifeboat ethics (evolutionary ethics) has to presume there is no higher power in control of everything that happens in order for humans to presume to themselves complete authority to make the rules as far as who gets tossed and who has a “right” to survive. It is a Faustian bargain all around seeing as anyone who accepts the perspective must reduce themselves to a less than human mode of seeing reality.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I tend in that direction. Although the term social Darwinism seems to be used with negative connotations. Evolutionary ethics or evolutionalry psychology are better suited. But people do seem to either not know, ignore or purposely avoid thinking about the evolutionary reasons why we do a lot of what we do.

In other words, “evolutionary ethics” don’t come with all the “baggage” that social Darwinism entails. Of course, it lightens the lifeboat substantively when baggage hasn’t been brought on board.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Now, the Believer can say, even if the immoral agent appeals to religion as his rationale for murdering his daughter: “Well, you are wrong”. Both of our moral authorities come from God but we correct their misinformed theology.

In the cast that you reference how would one do that? What is to be done if a group is not interested in hearing such correction?

 

[James_Tyler]

Let’s take it up a little. It’s too easy to break a speed limit without intentionally doing so.

Let’s say drink driving.

Your argument leads to one of the reasons for not doing it is because you might get caught. It seems to miss the point ENTIRELY that any right minded person would not do it anyway. No right minded person needs the threat of being caught.

We don’t need anyone watching over us to make sure we do the right thing. Well, I don’t. It seems that you do. Otherwise, why argue the point.

We need God for more than just a policeman watching us to make sure we do no wrong. You misunderstand if you think that is all we are after. There are many problems. We look to God for leadership. We find it also, whether it can verified by a third party or not…

 

[Bradski]

You can only say, “That’s not my preference”!"

You constantly confuse the result of reasonable arguments with personal preferences. Reasonable arguments lead to reasonable conclusions not to an individual’s preference.

I had a personal,preference to smack a guy in a bar last night because…well, for whatever. But intenal reasonable arguments persuaded me that what I wanted to do was wrong. So I didn’t.

If someone says that it is their preference to beat women, then that person, using reasonable arguments, should be locked up. If he has a reason other than that, then I am prepared to listen to it. If it is not as good as a reasonable argument for NOT beating up women, then he should be locked up.

See? It’s blazingly straightforward. Preferences do NOT enter into it. Neither does ‘divine authority’. Use either and I, and all reasonable people, will ignore it.

 

[Bradski]

Thats because the term is often use to describe a perspective by people such as Herbert Spencer to justify imperialism, cut-throat economic policies, and unfair treatment of others. The perspectives had existed before Darwin came around but those ideas got branded with Darwin’s name.Herbert Spencer was also the person responsible for coining the phrase “survival of the fittest” which he was applying to economic theories. Unfortunately these ideas are often conflated with evolution and evolutionary studies even though they are unrelated.

People constantly confuse Darwin’s use of the term ‘survival of the fittest’. He meant it to mean ‘survival of those best fitted’, not the more modern useage of healthiest or strongest. Which renders Social Darwinism in that context meaningless.

Hence Peter’s confusion with his lifeboat example. It’s an easy to understand simplistic argument though, which is why it is used so often. Kill or be killed. Well, if we were still living in trees it would be true.

Luckily for us, evolution doesn’t control us any more. We control evolution. We have taken the random element out of the equation. But, and this is the point, we still are animals formed by the evolutionary process. And the characteristics developed during that process are still there. Hence you snarl. Hence you cower. Hence you strut and growl and fight.

Evolutionary psychology recognises the causes. It doesn’r prescribe actions.

 

[James_Tyler]

Morality is basically just a code of conduct. It is based in a context. People have a code of conduct. It is unique to each person and develops through experience. These codes are based on something. Therefore we see that the moral codes that people have are often similar based on context such as family, country, god. These codes of conduct are being built everyday on contexts other than our God. Yes, there are codes of conduct that people have adopted that have nothing to do with God. Furthermore they are often the correct codes. The argument that there is no morality outside of God is a poor attempt at conversion. It is obviously untrue and convincing someone of it is a conversion to falsehood and goes against God. That is my opinion.

As Christians we should remember that we are not primarily trying to convert people to a specific code of conduct but rather to convert people to the Holy Spirit. One who has received the Holy Spirit will write a proper code of conduct within his context. That is my belief. Reference to Paul for more information.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

What I have seen argued by Roman Catholics concerning the dropping of the bomb on Japan was that is was moral to do so because the bomb was directed toward a military target. They argue that it is OK to bomb military targets even if you use the atomic bomb.

You have been hearing the wrong and uninformed Catholics. They have a right to their opinion, but you don’t have a right to assert that their opinion is the Catholic opinion. Catholics ought to rely on Church authority, rather than fly-by-the-seat-of-their-pants preferences.

Read this in its entirety concerning the reaction of Pope Pius XII and the American bishops to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/tough-lessons-to-learn-from-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-just-war-nuclear-disarmament-11093/

Then there is this recently from Pope Francis:

"Dear Brothers and Sisters,

“Seventy years ago, on the 6th and the 9th of August 1945, the terrible atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki took place. Even after so many years, this tragic event still arouses horror and revulsion. This (event) has become the symbol of mankind’s enormous destructive power when it makes a distorted use of scientific and technical progress and serves as a lasting warning to humanity so that it rejects forever war and bans nuclear weapons and all arms of mass destruction. Above all, this sad anniversary urges us to pray and strive for peace, to spread brotherhood throughout the world and a climate of peaceful coexistence between peoples. May one cry rise up from every land, ‘No’ to war and violence and ‘Yes’ to dialogue and to peace. With war one always loses. The only way to win a war is never to wage it."

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Many atheists embrace the philosophy of secular humanism which attempts to answer moral questions by appealing to human reason, ethics, and philosophical naturalism. Generally, they believe that ethical values and principles may be discovered by reasonable deliberation and consideration of the issue involved without basing them on supernatural views of reality, but rather judging these principles of moral conduct on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility. They are convinced that they can secure justice and fairness in society by using reason and good will intelligently and creatively to build a better world, both for the individual and for humankind.

This way of thinking is good as far as it goes. It doesn’t go far enough because it still assumes moral relativism. You will not find many humanists willing to argue for objective morality of the type espoused by the Catholic Church, which recognizes that morality is not entirely subject to determination by right thinking people. What Catholic morality understands is that the devil is at work constantly persuading us to think wrongly in the moral realm. He arranges for lies to be told, not only by others, but also by lies we tell ourselves about what is right and wrong. The Church exists not to confirm those lies, but to expose them by countering them in her catechetical teachings.

You and Brad still don’t get it, that we are not islands of righteousness unto ourselves. We are all connected to the mainland of morality created by God and given to the Church for our protection from the wickedness of the devil who seeks constantly whom he may devour.

There is not catechism put out by the humanists for the simple reason that they would have to publicly and reasonably explain and justify what they judge to be right and wrong, and then all hell would break loose because you can hardly get ten moral relativists in a room to agree on anything other than their right to have their personal preference pass as the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong.